Less Sydney Sweeney, More Invaders in Ceuta (Cristian Campos in El Hapañol)

The Spanish left appears to hold an ambiguous position regarding immigration, criticizing the reception of Ukrainians while defending that of Africans, raising questions about their motivations.

The debate over immigration in Spain has highlighted an apparent contradiction in the left's discourse. While advocating for the welcome of those from Africa, there is a veiled or explicit criticism observed toward the arrival of Ukrainian citizens. This dichotomy raises questions about the criteria guiding these positions and whether they are based on solid ideological principles or circumstantial political interests.

## The Ukrainian Paradox: Second-Class Refugees?

The arrival of Ukrainian refugees in Spain, estimated at **350,000 people** until May 2024, according to some statements, has not generated the same social or political alarm as other migratory flows. However, left-wing political figures have pointed out this difference, questioning why the reception of Ukrainians is not accompanied by the same demand for control or debate as African immigration, especially at arrival points like **Ceuta**. It has been suggested that the reception of Ukrainians, who do not speak Spanish and are mostly Orthodox Christians, has proceeded without incidents, while the arrival of Africans is presented as a problem. This comparison seeks to evidence a possible double standard, suggesting that the criticism of African immigration may be tinged with racism.

The hypothesis that male migration, such as the African kind (at **94%**), is what generates the most political rejection is an idea circulating. If the left's discourse focuses on fleeing war and violence, the question arises why male migrants do not prioritize the evacuation of the most vulnerable members of their families: children, women, and the elderly. The decision to leave these groups behind raises questions about the true motives of migration and the coherence of the humanitarian discourse.

## Chinese Immigration as a Counterpoint

In contrast, immigration from **China** is presented as an example of a group that does not generate political friction. It is argued that this community is primarily dedicated to work, without interfering in Spanish public life, without contributing to the social instability that some governments might need to maintain power, and without imposing its culture. This discretion and focus on labor make them, according to this view, a group that does not disrupt the political or social status quo, and therefore is not subject to criticism from the left.

The absence of political conflict surrounding Chinese immigration is attributed to its profile: workers who do not cause disruption. Unlike other groups, they are not associated with crime or the conflicting occupation of public space. This peaceful and work-focused profile contrasts with the image often projected onto other migratory groups, leading to the question of whether the Spanish left, in its pursuit of political confrontation, prefers groups that can be used as tools for debate or to generate a certain instability.

## The Venezuelan Case and Left Criticism

Venezuelan immigration is another case mentioned as particularly uncomfortable for the Spanish left. It is argued that this migration is seen as proof of the failure of socialism and the authoritarian and violent nature of the regimes that caused it. Therefore, criticism from the left toward Venezuelans would not be based on their origin or culture, but on what their exodus represents: the failure of a political model aligned with certain sectors of the left.

The reception of **200,000 Venezuelans** in a year, according to cited data, occurs against a backdrop where the Spanish left has been particularly critical of the situation in Venezuela. The official narrative of the left tends to blame international sanctions or external factors for the country's problems, but the mass migration of Venezuelans is tangible evidence of internal collapse. This creates a tension that the left seems to manage by diverting attention toward other migratory flows, such as the African one, in order to maintain its discourse of universal solidarity.

## Ukraine: A Real War That Doesn't Convince?

The Ukrainian paradox lies in the fact that, unlike African immigration which supposedly flees war, Ukrainians are escaping a real and declared armed conflict. In theory, this should make them the 'alpha' immigrants, most deserving of support and solidarity. However, the Spanish left appears reluctant toward this narrative, even questioning the reception of Ukrainians.

The explanation advanced by some sectors of the left to justify this reluctance is based on comparison with African immigration. It is suggested that the difference lies in the fact that Ukrainians, being predominantly women and families, fit a more 'traditional' or desirable refugee profile, whereas African immigration, predominantly male, is viewed with suspicion. This perspective suggests that the left may be more comfortable with immigration that fits certain stereotypes of vulnerability, and that the arrival of young, working-age men from Africa generates an discomfort that is masked with discourses about racism or xenophobia.

## Sydney Sweeney's 'Badness' and Female Immigration

A recurring idea in the debate is the hypothetical reaction of left-wing feminism to predominantly female immigration, comparing it to the figure of actress **Sydney Sweeney**. The supposed exaggerated reaction to the actress's announcement is used to illustrate how the left might react differently to female immigration, which might be perceived as less threatening or more aligned with its ideals.

The Ukrainian immigration, estimated to be **60% female**, is presented as an example that genuine migration due to war or violence is, by nature, predominantly female and family-based. When a man flees conflict, it is assumed he will try to bring his family. If he cannot leave, he will send his family. Therefore, predominantly male immigration, like the African kind, might indicate that the motives for migration are not purely fleeing war, but rather economic factors, which, according to this argument, would not justify political asylum.

## Ceuta: The Epicenter of Discord

The case of **Ceuta** becomes a focal point of this discussion. It is noted that African immigration, particularly Segarro, which is the majority in Spain, not only does not flee war but is sometimes presented as a group that generates conflict with the local population. The idea that this immigration 'invades' public spaces, 'occupies' beaches, and 'pushes Ceuta residents into exile' contrasts radically with the perception of Ukrainian refugees, who behave discreetly and fit the victim profile.

This difference in behavior and social impact is what, according to some analyses, highlights the contradictions of the left's discourse on immigration. If the left advocates for universal reception but criticizes the arrival of Ukrainians and shows particular concern regarding African immigration in places like Ceuta, it is because the motivations behind these positions are more complex than they appear and may be influenced by political factors and social perception.